Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1955–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sukljian v. Charles Ross & Son Co.green1 sentence2009By way of contrast, the occasional seller “has neither the opportunity, nor the incentive, nor the protection of the manufacturer or seller who puts that product into the stream of commerce as a normal part of its business, and the public consumer does not have the same expectation when it buys from such a seller” (id. at 146, quoting Sukljian, 69 NY2d at 96 [internal quotation marks omitted]). *188 Commenting that “[w]hile the reasons behind the ordinary seller rule and occasional seller exception [were] clear, where to draw the line between ordinary and occasional sellers [was] not,” the cou | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Maloneygreen1 sentence2004As plaintiffs failed to present anything more than speculation that the completion of discovery might uncover such circumstances (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Cox v Maloney, 262 AD2d 832, 833 [1999]), Supreme Court correctly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints against them. | 1 | 1 |
Sherman v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2004While there may be circumstances where a minor tortfeasor’s participation in the purchase is so immediate and apparent to the seller that an exception to this rule could be found (see Sherman v Robinson, supra at 488), such circumstances are not present here. | 1 | 1 |
Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. . Gardengreen2 sentences1955While the power to withhold approval is an untrammelled one where the object of the contract is “to gratify taste, serve personal convenience, or satisfy individual preference ” (Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. Garden, supra, 101 N. Y. 387, 390 ), a different rule ordinarily prevails, in this state, for commercial contracts where the suitability of the goods is a matter of “ mechanical fitness, utility, or marketability ” (3 Williston on Contracts [1936], p. 1946); in such a case, the contract is “ construed as imposing upon the seller the requirement only that a reasonable man * * * be satisfied 1955While the power to withhold approval is an untrammelled one where the object of the contract is “to gratify taste, serve personal convenience, or satisfy individual preference ” (Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. Garden, supra, 101 N. Y. 387, 390 ), a different rule ordinarily prevails, in this state, for commercial contracts where the suitability of the goods is a matter of “ mechanical fitness, utility, or marketability ” (3 Williston on Contracts [1936], p. 1946); in such a case, the contract is “ construed as imposing upon the seller the requirement only that a reasonable man * * * be satisfied | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
green
1 sentence2009Corp. (754 F2d 1212 [5th Cir 1985]) (Jaramillo, 536 F3d at 146 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bolm v. Triumph Corp.
green
1 sentence1980In such action only the contributory negligence of the buyer in privity with the seller will bar his recovery (see Bohn v Triumph Corp., 71 AD2d 429, 433-434 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Lewis v. Doyle
neutral
1 sentence1976Nor is the knowledge on the part of the seller that the representation is false an essential part of the warranty (Lewis v Doyle, 13 App Div 291 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Brisbane v. . Parsons
green
1 sentence1976However, good faith on the part of the seller is no defense to an action for breach of warranty (Brisbane v Parsons, 33 NY 332 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Gilder v. . Davis
green
1 sentence1968(See, e.g., Levy v. Lacey, supra, p. 274.) As we stated in Older v. Davis (supra, p. 506 ): “If from a defect in the title of the vendor, or from a refusal to consummate the contract on the part of the purchaser for any reason, in no way attributable to the broker the sale falls through, nevertheless the broker is entitled to his commissions, for the simple reason that he has performed his contract.” Since the vendee may elect to fully perform the contract even though the contingency contemplated by' the statute has occurred, it would be an unwarranted construction of the section to find that | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Hummel v. Stern
neutral
1 sentence1955While the power to withhold approval is an untrammelled one where the object of the contract is “to gratify taste, serve personal convenience, or satisfy individual preference ” (Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. Garden, supra, 101 N. Y. 387, 390 ), a different rule ordinarily prevails, in this state, for commercial contracts where the suitability of the goods is a matter of “ mechanical fitness, utility, or marketability ” (3 Williston on Contracts [1936], p. 1946); in such a case, the contract is “ construed as imposing upon the seller the requirement only that a reasonable man * * * be satisfied | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Hummel v. . Stern
neutral
1 sentence1955While the power to withhold approval is an untrammelled one where the object of the contract is “to gratify taste, serve personal convenience, or satisfy individual preference ” (Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. Garden, supra, 101 N. Y. 387, 390 ), a different rule ordinarily prevails, in this state, for commercial contracts where the suitability of the goods is a matter of “ mechanical fitness, utility, or marketability ” (3 Williston on Contracts [1936], p. 1946); in such a case, the contract is “ construed as imposing upon the seller the requirement only that a reasonable man * * * be satisfied | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Doll v. . Noble
green
2 sentences1955However, even if defendant established that the sample was satisfactory (cf. Doll v. Noble, supra, 116 N. Y. 230, 232-233 ; Bowery Nat. 1955However, even if defendant established that the sample was satisfactory (cf. Doll v. Noble, supra, 116 N. Y. 230, 232-233 ; Bowery Nat. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.